What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
27 Comments
- seripd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15while yes cancer cells are stem cells based on your definition that isn't really what the article is getting at. What's new about this hypothesis (although I mean new in a relative sense since I've been hearing this for years) is that stem cells may be the source of cancer in the first place. It was originally believed that cancer was normal (non proliferative) cells "gone bad" due to mutations that allowed uncontrolled reentry in to the cell cycle. Now many believe that the small percentage of stem cells that remain in most tissues are the progenitors of cancer. This has also been seen invitro where the long lived Verfaillie mesenchymal stem cells have been shown to spontaneously transform into cancerous type cells, i.e. the grow uncontrollably even when growth factors are removed.
- schwack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Dugg because my father was diagnosed with a brain tumor last week. What I need now more than anything is hope for a cure. Granted, my dad won't have the benefit of this pursuit of stem cell research, but if it can save lives ten years from now, I'm all for it.
Cancer is a horrible affliction to face, let alone survive. My dad went through it years ago with colon cancer. It went into remission after they removed the tumor, and did radiation / chemo. Now this. If there were one therapy, one cure for cancer that truly worked and helped countless millions of people, I'd do everything I could to support it. - pipedreambomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How ironic, the very thing the article claims to be the root of cancer... causes cancer in animals.
- phaed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6mod me down
- Animal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And I believe that the Simpsons line from which pipedreambomb derived his comment is the following:
Homer: "...it seems that the cat has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him."
Skinner: "How ironic."
Am I correct? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not if the 50% of this country who believe stem cell research is murder have their way.
- CHurst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ pipedreambomb:
What the hell are you trying to say? - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That won't help existing cancer. This is for cancer prevention.
Once cancer started, the cancer cells bypass "programmed cell death" and divide indefinitely. At that stage you do not need stem cells to replenish the affected tissue. - DanMcScience, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Two things:
1) Does anyone have a link to the actual Nature paper? I looked for it yesterday and I couldn't find it. I'm usually able to find papers when I want em....
2) Just to clairify, cancerous cells can arise from many different causes, including viruses, stem cells gone wrong and differentiated gone wrong. The point is that there are different types of cancer cells in a tumor (which isn't news), and that there are cancerous stem cells in colorectal cancer (which is news). - Moopy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@CiXeL:
They're called Teratomas. Another interesting thing about them, is that they unaffected by chemotherapy. - Necromancyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just saw an actual presentation at a conference about this 2 weeks ago. The theory is that there are 'cancer stem cells' - essentially either cells that have reverted back to stem cells or stem cells 'gone bad' that produce the problematic cells. If you understand how cells diffentiate and grow, this means these cells can continue to propogate forever.
This isn't too amazing, it actually means cancer occurs less frequently in non-dividing cells then people originally beleived. - pipedreambomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In a word: that's right.
- Sfmobius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I lost both my parents and several of my Aunts/Uncles to cancer. I hope this "new discovery" turns into applicable treatment. It sounds promising. I'm just suprised it has taken us this long to make the connection.
- CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ironic, as several experimental embryonic stem-cell treatments for animals have caused tumors.
"We assessed the genomic fidelity of paired early- and late-passage hESC lines in the course of tissue culture. Relative to early-passage lines, eight of nine late-passage hESC lines had one or more genomic alterations commonly observed in human cancers.."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16142235&dopt=Abstract
"[W]hen the animals were autopsied after three months and their brains were examined microscopically, the team found multiple tumors, indicating that some of the injected cells did not settle into the job of being neurons but rather had begun to grow uncontrollably."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200928.html - Balf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the stem cell "theory" is just another smokescreen to deflect everyone away from the real issues around cancer, particularly how terribly ineffective it has been to spend untold billions without making gains for patients with cancer for 30 years, While promoting surgery, chemo and radiation treatments (that Oncologists would not submit themselves to) all other forms of treatment are unapproved..
I say back to basics: Cancer is cells that behave abnormally, and that proliferate out of control. The key thing everyone seems to skip over is "out of control". Well, out of control of what? The immune system of course. Our white blood cells kill cancer cells so it is not that they have been targeting the wrong cells, it is that they are ignoring and killing off our natural defenses along with cancer cells. Surgery Chemo & radiation decimates immune white blood cells. That is why Docs test them all the time (no white blood cells = no live patient). Natural Immunotherapy is the answer to dramatically improved results, no matter what else a patient does. Of this I am convinced.
It is no accident that the 2002 special report on cancer from the World health Organization shows that North Americans and Europeans, the biggest consumers of surgery/chemo/radiation and the lowest proponents of immune health fare the worst against cancer globally. 85% of the world population do allot better than we do against cancer in both incidence and death rates. We in North America are a mere 5% of the world population yet we bare 9% of the cancer deaths globally. Kinda makes you think doesn't it?
The immune system naturally fights any man-made interventions/products as foreign substances, but there are some great ways to elevate immune function and robustly activate white blood cells against cancers, safely and reliably. Mainstream medicine will never endorse this because they cannot make crazy profits from it. But it is what will eventually improve our worst-in-the-world 50% five year survival rate.
The Globe article was a series in which the first article on stem cells clearly indicates that current approaches do not work.(wrong targets etc). Yet then the series moves onto: "Treatment waits are too long" (for treatments that don't work); "Falling behind in research" (that have only yielded treatments that don't work); Improved diagnostics (for treatments that don't work). Then progress is made by looking at chemo (there must be a better way), speculating that flu may cure cancer etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to yet again support the colossally profitable cancer industry. Chemo sales 2005 US$26 billion.
This is nothing short of oops, we flushed billions, shortened the live of millions, but this time we may really be onto something so keep those donations coming while "we search for the cure". Horsefeathers.
The cure is in the mirror for those who do not have cancer. It is not a flu bug you catch. The cancer free person has cells "under control" of white blood cells that routinely terminate abnormal cells (damaged by toxins/chemicals) and cancer cells. Take the white blood cells away, or overwhelm them with toxins, major surgery/trauma, the human natural control mechanism is weakened sufficiently to be ineffective. Bingo, cancer.
Schwack, I am sorry to hear of your father's brain tumor diagnosis after successful colon cancer treatment. It is so scary that the return of cancer is so predictable with those who do well in their first battle, It seems the only variably is how long it takes to come back, and where. Chemo kills cancer cell but also kills the white blood cells you need to defend against it's return once chemo ends. Surgery, chemo and radiation are all highly immunosuppressive. So your father was diagnosed cancer-free after treatment, but he was also left insufficiently defended from it's return.
This is maddening because robust immune support is available. It is safe, effective and makes all other treatments better and dramatically less punishing for the patient. The Uncle of a friend of mine had brain cancer. He was 86 years old and had previously survived brain tumor surgery, 2 rounds of chem and radiation. It came back with a vengeance and he was given 6 weeks to live. With 4 weeks to live he lost vision, most speech and mobility because the tumor was growing so fast. His daughter gave him a medicinal mushroom extract Mesima while they kept him on low dose chemo. His speech, vision and mobility returned. He stopped all medications and announced that he was leaving the hospital to go home and die. Understandable after what he'd been through. Incredibly, he lasted eight months before he died. What is noted by his family is that nothing the docs did shrank either hindered tumor growth much less shrink it. Yet this mushroom extract did.
If I were you, I would go have a look at www.mesima.ca. There is information there I have never seen anywhere else. I think that there is even a case of brain cancer cure outlined there. Good luck. Balf
Supporting immune system health from the very start helps all the way through and significantly reduces metastasis...spreading. - savagepanda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is ironic that Stem Cells, the genesis of life as we know it, may eventually forsake their design to take their hand in the destruction of what they have built.
Perhaps millions of years ago, the ancestors of the stem cells of today were mutated (through exposure to the harsh environment and cosmic rays), to breathe life into what were then, pools of inanimate amino goo.
Life and death joins together in a delicate macabre dance on a stage strung between statistically improbable events. - billyswong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From the article:
"The cancer stem cell hypothesis suggests that we don't cure cancer because our current drugs know how to kill rapidly proliferating tissue," said Dr. Dirks at Sick Kids. "But our limited understanding of the cancer stem cell is that it does not proliferate rapidly."
This is the key point. Our current medication kill the pawns but miss the King. And tumor relapses. Wish they can invent effective therapy based on this finding. - Moopy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Cancer cells naturally die through apoptosis, and you're DNA automatically corrects and fixes itself. That is, if you body isn't too busy and stressed out with other things like acid and lack of sleep.
- 47f0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0One crucial problem is that there is no "Cancer" with a capital "C" - cancer is defined by the end results - the unregulated growth and spread of tissue. But the underlying causes are varied.
It's a little like deciding we are going to eliminate automobile collisions. So we lower the speed limit. But we still have collisions. So we ban cell phones. But we still have collisions. We put up barriers on highway medians... and so on.
It seems unlikely that there will ever be "A" cure for cancer, and it's naive to assume that addressing the end results, which is where our medicine is today, will eliminate the causes. It seems much more likely that we will have multiple cures for the multiple underlying causes.
Your father has my best wishes. Having had a kid with cancer, I have to say that sheer attitude can also play a vital role in cure. Tell him to keep his chin up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So wait, if you are against any kind of research on Stem Cells, then if it can cure cancer, you're out of luck?
- pipedreambomb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If cancer cells are stem cells, will they be able to cure diseases in the future? :) Maybe they can even cure cancer.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4yes. the article is dumb.
theyve known about this FOREVER. there are particular tumors where they even find hair and teeth in them due to this fact. - princessangry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0why are they saying this when stem cells have been known to treat cancer effectively??
- CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm just sayin', I haven't seen it happen in any adult stem-cell treatments, several of which are already being used on humans.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2No, see, this is exactly why we need to ban stem cells all-together!
You heard me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Sorry, wrong comment.. Digg me down boys
- ryke12, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Um... I would like to remind people that the scientists in the world have been aware of this for a very very long amount of time, mainly because the cells in cancer are the very definition of stem cells.
A. They can replicate indefinitely.
B. They can differentiate, ie. they can form different kinds of cells.
Also do remember that "cloning" is not the perfect solution it's meant to be, like therapeutic cloning, because stem cells that differentiate into other types of cells artificially CAN NOT as of yet be stopped from infinite replication, thus if you use therapeutic cloning to create an organ, or a type of cell that someone has been missing since birth (like the insulin complex, which leads to genetic diabetes), you now have cancer.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is